The political landscape often mirrors a living organism—complex, interconnected, and susceptible to ailments that aren't immediately visible. Lately, there's been a quiet calcification setting into the very bones of our electoral system, leading to stiffness and brittleness that hinders its ability to adapt and respond. This subtle hardening isn't dramatic or overt, but its implications run deep, affecting the vitality of our collective body.
What is this calcification? Political scientist Lynn Vavreck coined it as a term about an idea she calls "polarization plus."[1] It's more than just widening divides between parties. Within each party, there's increasing uniformity, creating an echo chamber of ideas. On top of this, people find the most interest in identity-based politics. These are not just policy debates but battles over identity, where many voters won't entertain the other side's perspective.
Electoral calcification represents more than just political polarization; it’s a structural brittleness that limits resilience and responsiveness, making our system vulnerable to fracture under future pressures.
There's a paradox here: despite the setting rigidity, power frequently shifts due to the near-equal strength of opposing forces. This stems from the growing parity in the two parties’ electoral strength, evident from the previous presidential election. In 2020, the Democratic party identification advantage was just 4%, the smallest in 70 years[2].
Small movements—a slight demographic shift, a marginal change in voter turnout—can tip the scales. It's akin to a body so stiff that even minor pressures can cause fractures, yet the underlying brittleness remains unaddressed.
This state of affairs creates a self-perpetuating cycle. When “insecure majorities” exist, a term coined by political scientist Francis Lee, victory is always just within reach[3]. Voters may feel disillusioned by this, and rightly so. Ezra Klin interviewed Lynn Vavrek and her co-author, John Sides, and published a New York Times article about the experience. In this article, he says, “Because politics is so calcified, virtually nothing matters, but because elections are so close, virtually everything matters[4].” Though calcification results in fewer minds shifting with each election, the close parity between parties means even the most marginal shifts can radically reshape American politics.
How can we manage this tension, especially after experiencing yet another close election? According to Lynn Vavrek, what matters to voters isn’t policy but identity, fear, and, perhaps above all, defeating the opposing side[5]. As our political identities solidify, we become more focused on what the opposition might do if they win. Opponents aren’t seen as well-meaning Americans with different views but as threats to our way of life, with each ballot box as a last stand.
Unfortunately, the interview did not offer a “silver bullet” to calcification. However, Vavrek said something that stuck out to me: “It is very important who wins elections. But it is also very important who loses.” And she is correct.
The foundation of our political experiment relies on citizens accepting defeat in free and fair elections. Calcification, however, doesn’t encourage the losing side to reconsider its approach or expand its appeal for the next round. Instead, it whispers that defeat isn’t due to a weak candidate or economic circumstances; it’s the fault of a broken system, one that must be “fixed.”
No matter who you voted for and whether or not they won this election, accept the results. Calcification and parity are extreme problems within our system—there is no denying that. We owe it to ourselves, and each other, to counteract these things. Fight the urge to echo your party's ideas. Have difficult conversations. Above all, accept the outcome of this election while understanding the potential for improvement.
Just as a living organism requires flexibility to heal, our political system depends on open dialogue, acceptance of outcomes, and a willingness to evolve. The calcification within our electoral bones threatens this essential flexibility, introducing a stiffness that hinders growth. If we continue to harden ourselves against the shifts that occur within democracy and across-the-aisle dialogue, we risk fracturing the very foundation upon which our nation stands.
